HISTORY AND HUMAN RELATIONS I knew, who imagined that a knowledge of the basic conditions of the Elizabethan era would provide one with a formula or a condensation of the culture of that period which would render the reading of the more incidental manifestations of that culture (Shakespeare himself, for example) superfluous. This again is the effect of materialism in the popular sense of the word and it would not seem to be correct to regard it as an inevitable consequence of the Marxian method as such, If the Marxist may be right when he puts the economic substructure at the bottom, he is not permitted to place it also at the top, or, alternatively, to dismiss every- thing else—art, the constructions of the intellect, the achievements of personality and the spiritual things— as mere superstructure and therefore unimportant. It is one thing to recognise the significance of economic factors in history, or possibly, for anything I know, a kind of finality which they may even possess " in the last resort". It is another thing entirely to see the history of religion or culture or even politics as almost a crude by-product of economic history. If it is true that we betray our real values by the things we think it worth while to know about the past—the things we regard as central to history—the Marxists are significant in what they choose to relegate to the fringe. Perhaps they stand as the symptom of an age condemned, partly no doubt by its own errors, to a terrible preoccupation with the material side of life. In one sense also they stand as the voice of the disinherited, not yet schooled in the values of an ancient civilisation, which they see chiefly as an object of attack.